3 ms·

>The enhanced delete feature, meanwhile, has been in the app for a while, but is part of the company’s is a way for users to wipe a conversation not just on the

by ikeboy 11y ago

>The enhanced delete feature, meanwhile, has been in the app for a while, but is part of the company’s is a way for users to wipe a conversation not just on their end, but on that of the recipient’s phone. You can think of this as Viber’s answer to ephemeral messaging, but with a more manual approach. Does anyone else think this is a violation of users' rights? If I've been sent a message, it shouldn't be possible for the server to delete it. I could screenshot everything, or run a tweak that saves everything. Imagine if Gmail started allowing senders to remove email they've already sent and has been delivered.

robbiemitchell 11y ago
What do you mean by "user's rights" and by "sent"? Why shouldn't it be possible? If the TOS and app allow and enable it, it can be done. This sounds no different from, say, Snapchat, except that the deletion is triggered by the sender instead of by a timer.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  It's the same thing people complain about wrt unfree software, e.g. Kindle deleting purchased books remotely if they were uploaded by someone without the rights to the book. The difference with snapshot is that their whole gimmick was the deleting thing. You had no expectation of permanency. But I'm sure many use Viber with the expectation that they'll be able to access old communications; after all, it's on their own device. Sure, they have the right to do it, in the same way that Gmail could implement the same anti feature, in the same way Amazon had the right to delete books. But that just causes me not to use them, just like I'd stop using Gmail if they did that. (I still use a Kindle, but I've only ever purchased one book, and read it right away. I'm not dependent on them not deleting my books.)
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    If a service offers a feature, it's within customers' rights to use that feature. If Viber is unilaterally deleting messages, that's an issue (as ephemeral messaging doesn't seem to be their primary intent). But if Alice is able to delete her messages to Bob on Bob's device, and both know this (or should know this, they chose the messaging platform), Bob has not had his rights violated. He's complying with Alice's request (automatically). The comparison to Amazon is not apt. That was Amazon, not the seller of the book, that chose to delete it (in that case because the seller didn't have a right to sell, though given it was 1984 it was rather amusing/ironic). If, for instance, Amazon's digital platform allowed sellers to remove their content from Amazon's listings AND from "buyers'" devices, then 1) no one should be too surprised when it happens, 2) no one should use that platform.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      The comparison to Amazon is about the remotely deleting part, not the why part. I have a problem with anything on my device being deleted without my consent.
      - robbiemitchell 11y ago
        You used the word "sent" earlier and the phrase "on my device" now. But it seems the app isn't transferring the message to you, only presenting it -- like a website. (Does the message exist outside the app?) Not being pedantic for the sake of it, just pointing out the language you are using is from a position of ownership -- you receiving and owning a message sent to you, and it is then being deleted -- while the app seems to be retaining all rights with the sender, who merely uses the app to present a message to you, and can revoke viewing privileges at any time.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Once it can be viewed offline, the sender shouldn't be able to delete it.
      - lotso 11y ago
        I think this is a valuable feature for users of the product. Some users like this feature. If you don't, just use another product. Not everything needs to be a philosophical debate.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        I don't think the feature is well known. What percent of Viber users could tell you that messages can be deleted without their consent?
        lotso 11y ago
        I think that's irrelevant. It's part of the product, is an intentional feature that has value, and is not even an uncommon feature (exists on Instagram DMs.
ghshephard 11y ago
I think it's reasonable to allow senders to revoke a sent message, particularly if it was sent just a short period of time ago. The only assurance you would have that this works is if both sender/receiver are on the same system. The question is a little trickier if the receiver has read the message. And, I agree, that after some period of time, particularly after the receiver has read the message, the message should be inviolate on the receivers side.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If it hasn't been delivered to the user's device, fine. Once it's been delivered, it shouldn't be modified. I suppose I might be OK with individual exceptions to this rule, if some sensitive message was sent, after going through customer service. It certainly shouldn't be a one click to delete.
dchest 11y ago
Imagine you're on the run from mafia and communicating with your parents via a messenger. You sent your current location and after a few hours mafia people approached your parents and took their phone. Now, if you sent an message that deletes itself, you're sure that unless your parents didn't preserve it intentionally by copying and pasting or taking screenshot, this location isn't revealed to mafia. If your messenger didn't have this feature, your parents would have manually delete the sensitive message — what if they forgot? This feature is quite useful, even if not 100% proof.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  As I said below, if every request had to go through customer service, I might be okay with it. And doesn't the same logic apply to Gmail? Do you think they should do the same?
losvedir 11y ago
> Does anyone else think this is a violation of users' rights? Not at all, and it's kind of strange to me that you do. It's just... how the app works. Slack lets you do it, for example, and I've used it occasionally. Heck, reddit (and I think HN?) let you delete comments, even if they were previously, uh, transmitted to a reader's browser. The Gmail example is irrelevant because that's not how email works. If a new company / protocol came about which wanted to try their hand at a different way of sending online letters, that let you delete them later then I'd have no problem with that. I might not use the service, but there's no foul play or anything.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >If a new company / protocol came about which wanted to try their hand at a different way of sending online letters, that let you delete them later then I'd have no problem with that. I don't think this is a particularly well-advertised feature of Viber. Neither reddit nor hn are meant to be a means of private comunication. Generally you can't view them offline, and so on. I'm not sure about slack >that's not how email works And I think the average user's expectation is that a messaging app will work the same. By the way, reddit won't let you delete PMs you've sent to another user.

by ikeboy 11y ago

robbiemitchell 11y ago

What do you mean by "user's rights" and by "sent"? Why shouldn't it be possible? If the TOS and app allow and enable it, it can be done. This sounds no different from, say, Snapchat, except that the deletion is triggered by the sender instead of by a timer.

ikeboy 11y ago
It's the same thing people complain about wrt unfree software, e.g. Kindle deleting purchased books remotely if they were uploaded by someone without the rights to the book. The difference with snapshot is that their whole gimmick was the deleting thing. You had no expectation of permanency. But I'm sure many use Viber with the expectation that they'll be able to access old communications; after all, it's on their own device. Sure, they have the right to do it, in the same way that Gmail could implement the same anti feature, in the same way Amazon had the right to delete books. But that just causes me not to use them, just like I'd stop using Gmail if they did that. (I still use a Kindle, but I've only ever purchased one book, and read it right away. I'm not dependent on them not deleting my books.)
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  If a service offers a feature, it's within customers' rights to use that feature. If Viber is unilaterally deleting messages, that's an issue (as ephemeral messaging doesn't seem to be their primary intent). But if Alice is able to delete her messages to Bob on Bob's device, and both know this (or should know this, they chose the messaging platform), Bob has not had his rights violated. He's complying with Alice's request (automatically). The comparison to Amazon is not apt. That was Amazon, not the seller of the book, that chose to delete it (in that case because the seller didn't have a right to sell, though given it was 1984 it was rather amusing/ironic). If, for instance, Amazon's digital platform allowed sellers to remove their content from Amazon's listings AND from "buyers'" devices, then 1) no one should be too surprised when it happens, 2) no one should use that platform.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    The comparison to Amazon is about the remotely deleting part, not the why part. I have a problem with anything on my device being deleted without my consent.
    - robbiemitchell 11y ago
      You used the word "sent" earlier and the phrase "on my device" now. But it seems the app isn't transferring the message to you, only presenting it -- like a website. (Does the message exist outside the app?) Not being pedantic for the sake of it, just pointing out the language you are using is from a position of ownership -- you receiving and owning a message sent to you, and it is then being deleted -- while the app seems to be retaining all rights with the sender, who merely uses the app to present a message to you, and can revoke viewing privileges at any time.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Once it can be viewed offline, the sender shouldn't be able to delete it.
    - lotso 11y ago
      I think this is a valuable feature for users of the product. Some users like this feature. If you don't, just use another product. Not everything needs to be a philosophical debate.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        I don't think the feature is well known. What percent of Viber users could tell you that messages can be deleted without their consent?
        lotso 11y ago
        I think that's irrelevant. It's part of the product, is an intentional feature that has value, and is not even an uncommon feature (exists on Instagram DMs.

ghshephard 11y ago

I think it's reasonable to allow senders to revoke a sent message, particularly if it was sent just a short period of time ago. The only assurance you would have that this works is if both sender/receiver are on the same system. The question is a little trickier if the receiver has read the message. And, I agree, that after some period of time, particularly after the receiver has read the message, the message should be inviolate on the receivers side.

ikeboy 11y ago
If it hasn't been delivered to the user's device, fine. Once it's been delivered, it shouldn't be modified. I suppose I might be OK with individual exceptions to this rule, if some sensitive message was sent, after going through customer service. It certainly shouldn't be a one click to delete.

dchest 11y ago

Imagine you're on the run from mafia and communicating with your parents via a messenger. You sent your current location and after a few hours mafia people approached your parents and took their phone. Now, if you sent an message that deletes itself, you're sure that unless your parents didn't preserve it intentionally by copying and pasting or taking screenshot, this location isn't revealed to mafia. If your messenger didn't have this feature, your parents would have manually delete the sensitive message — what if they forgot? This feature is quite useful, even if not 100% proof.

ikeboy 11y ago
As I said below, if every request had to go through customer service, I might be okay with it. And doesn't the same logic apply to Gmail? Do you think they should do the same?

losvedir 11y ago

> Does anyone else think this is a violation of users' rights? Not at all, and it's kind of strange to me that you do. It's just... how the app works. Slack lets you do it, for example, and I've used it occasionally. Heck, reddit (and I think HN?) let you delete comments, even if they were previously, uh, transmitted to a reader's browser. The Gmail example is irrelevant because that's not how email works. If a new company / protocol came about which wanted to try their hand at a different way of sending online letters, that let you delete them later then I'd have no problem with that. I might not use the service, but there's no foul play or anything.

ikeboy 11y ago
>If a new company / protocol came about which wanted to try their hand at a different way of sending online letters, that let you delete them later then I'd have no problem with that. I don't think this is a particularly well-advertised feature of Viber. Neither reddit nor hn are meant to be a means of private comunication. Generally you can't view them offline, and so on. I'm not sure about slack >that's not how email works And I think the average user's expectation is that a messaging app will work the same. By the way, reddit won't let you delete PMs you've sent to another user.